Code Review Request for Bug #4802647
brandon.passanisi at oracle.com
Wed Dec 21 19:23:06 UTC 2011
Yes, my intent was "extends AbstractSet<E>" instead of "extends
NewAbstractCollection<E>". I have reflected this in the updated webrev
below. Here's the information:
Webrev URL: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpassani/4802647/2/webrev/
Bug URL: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4802647
1. In MOAT.java, I changed NewAbstractSet to extend AbstractSet<E>.
2. The changes in 1) resulted in finding out that AbstractSet has the
same bug behavior with removeAll(null).
AbstractSet.removeAll(Collection<?> c) was updated accordingly.
3. I filed bug 7123424 to account for the same bug behavior found in
CopyOnWriteArrayList and CopyOnWriteArraySet.
4. It was advised that I skip the failing behavior of
CopyOnWriteArrayList and CopyOnWriteArraySet for
removeAll(null)/retainAll(null) in MOAT.java and provide a comment about
how the skip needs to be removed once bug 7123424 is fixed. This is the
reason for the instanceof checks that were recently added and the added
On 12/21/2011 7:52 AM, Jason Mehrens wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 10:12:02 +1000
> > From: david.holmes at oracle.com
> > To: brandon.passanisi at oracle.com
> > Subject: Re: Code Review Request for Bug #4802647
> > CC: core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net
> > Brandon,
> > I don't see the purpose of NewAbstractSet. It is identical to
> > NewAbstractCollection.
> I would assume the intent was "extends AbstractSet<E>" instead
> of "extends NewAbstractCollection<E>".
Brandon Passanisi | Principle Member of Technical Staff
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to
developing practices and products that help protect the environment
More information about the core-libs-dev